Aikido hate

[drop bear]

I'm with Gerry on this. In full contact competition, the attacks are definitely real attacks. On the other hand, the situation as a whole, the likely attacks, the likely setups, the psychology, the tactical and strategic considerations, etc are not the same as they are in the majority of real world violent assaults. There is a lot of useful overlap but there are important differences as well. I think that until we develop holodeck or Matrix technology, any and all training and testing methods are going to be imperfect approximations of real world violence.

Nah. It is a rabbit hole.

You see if they are approximations of a real attack. And in my self defence class they are approximations of a real attack then we cand lend both pieces of evidence the same weight.

So the takedown defense i pull off on barry who is approximating an attack is as viable as a competition proven defence.

And if i pull that same defence off at the kebab shop at 3am against a real attack then the move has greater validation than someone who has consistently pulled of a move in high level competition.

And we add to this the other idea that as an approximation of an attack it has to be reflected in the manner of a real street attack or we can't correctly utilise aiki.

We also add this idea that if you don't collapse they are going to break your arm.

And we have a damn mess on our hands.

 

[Steve]

Sure it does. And your training method, while probably highly effective, is not the only effective training method. Does that make sense?

I would happily agree with you that any training method that includes some way to measure efficacy is effective. Without any way to measure success, how can you know if training is successful?

I'm willing to take your word that your training is effective, even if you don't have any way to know, but that's mostly because I don't have a real stake in whether it fails or not. You do. Doesn't mean is actually IS effective. To be clear, I'm talking about self identifying some measurable criteria for success and then exceeding it.

I've literally seen people at the moment they realize that what they believed in their heart of hearts was true, wasn't. Their self image was one thing and reality gave them a bucket of ice water on the head.

EDIT: Just to add that success shouldn't be a 'probably' thing. Can I use my BJJ in self defense? Who knows? I know for sure I can reliably cross-collar choke someone even if hey don't want me to, and even if they're pretty well trained. How do I know this? Because I've done it thousands of times. See the difference?

 

[CB Jones]

Nah. It is a rabbit hole.

You see if they are approximations of a real attack. And in my self defence class they are approximations of a real attack then we cand lend both pieces of evidence the same weight.

So the takedown defense i pull off on barry who is approximating an attack is as viable as a competition proven defence.

And if i pull that same defence off at the kebab shop at 3am against a real attack then the move has greater validation than someone who has consistently pulled of a move in high level competition.

And we add to this the other idea that as an approximation of an attack it has to be reflected in the manner of a real street attack or we can't correctly utilise aiki.

And we have a damn mess on our hands.

Tell me more about this Kebab shop.

I do love a good steak Kebab.

 

[drop bear]

Yes, opinions vary.

But I'll say this much: competition gives me zero bang for my buck, because I have no interest and will not do it.

But that's just me, and I am comfortable with that.

It depends why you train though. If you trained for self defence in a comprehensive manner. Then you would have to look at the lessons learned from competition.

Same as engaging in fitness some don't like it and a martial artist does not have to engage in it. But if you are responsibly engaging in self defence you have to consider the practical benifits.

The advantage of self defense is nobody really does it. It is the equivalent of training a martial art you made up with your friends in your back yard.

 

[drop bear]

Sure it does. And your training method, while probably highly effective, is not the only effective training method. Does that make sense?

If you have a training method that produces consistent results. Then the alternative method would also have to produce consistent results.

Or exactly the same issue alternate medicine has.

 

[drop bear]

They are approximations of the attacks likely to occur on the street. They are real attacks, but not the same real attacks. This sort of misunderstanding is more than half of the issue.

Punching kicking and grappling is a pretty common attack. Flying knees not so much. But you peg someone with a flying knee. It is as fight ending in the street as it is in the ring.

You can't site rules or a ref or the padded floor or gloves. The guy was done without those influences.

And it broke his skull. It legitimately crippled the guy.

 

[Flying Crane]

I would happily agree with you that any training method that includes some way to measure efficacy is effective. Without any way to measure success, how can you know if training is successful?

I'm willing to take your word that your training is effective, even if you don't have any way to know, but that's mostly because I don't have a real stake in whether it fails or not. You do. Doesn't mean is actually IS effective. To be clear, I'm talking about self identifying some measurable criteria for success and then exceeding it.

I've literally seen people at the moment they realize that what they believed in their heart of hearts was true, wasn't. Their self image was one thing and reality gave them a bucket of ice water on the head.

EDIT: Just to add that success shouldn't be a 'probably' thing. Can I use my BJJ in self defense? Who knows? I know for sure I can reliably cross-collar choke someone even if hey don't want me to, and even if they're pretty well trained. How do I know this? Because I've done it thousands of times. See the difference?

You use whatever criteria you want, to evaluate your own training.

I just practice my stuff. With a partner when available, and by myself when a partner is not available. Which is most of the time, these days.

I don't set up some marker of some sort that I need to then "exceed". I don't see any need to create a measurement like that.

 

[Buka]

I feel pretty comfortable in this thread, because I don't know what we're talking about. (a constant state for me) But-

I love the whole Martial enchilada. The training, the uniforms we wear, the customs we adopt, the schools themselves, the people and the fighting. Each of us personally change as the years go by, some in little ways, some in big. If long term practice of the arts doesn't change you for the better in some ways, you're probably doing it wrong.

As for fighting and self defense, the training is different everywhere you go. In my approach, fighting and self defense are pretty much the same thing. But that's my approach, not anyone else’s.

As for what self defense actually is, and what fighting actually is, I turn to 1964, United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio

Stewart wrote:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

I think we all know fighting when we see it. I think we all recognize self defense when we are forced to engage in it. How we decide to train for such things is entirely up to us. As it should be.

That being said.....I still don't know what we're talking about.

 

[Steve]

You use whatever criteria you want, to evaluate your own training.

I just practice my stuff. With a partner when available, and by myself when a partner is not available. Which is most of the time, these days.

I don't set up some marker of some sort that I need to then "exceed". I don't see any need to create a measurement like that.

And that's fine, if you don't feel it's necessary. However, absent any form of measurement, you just can't evaluate whether your training is effective. And we're back to faith... which, again, is also fine, if you know that's where you're at. You can't say to someone, "I know my training is effective" unless you are prepared to explain what you mean by "effective" and how you're measuring your training against it.

Look, I hope it's clear. I'm not suggesting you must know whether your training is effective or not. I'm very specifically saying that "effective" is a subjective term that must be defined in some way. If you're going to use it, be prepared to define it.

It's like a manager telling an employee, "Do better." It's only helpful feedback if the employee understands what you mean by "better."

 

[Flying Crane]

And that's fine, if you don't feel it's necessary. However, absent any form of measurement, you just can't evaluate whether your training is effective. And we're back to faith... which, again, is also fine, if you know that's where you're at. You can't say to someone, "I know my training is effective" unless you are prepared to explain what you mean by "effective" and how you're measuring your training against it.

Look, I hope it's clear. I'm not suggesting you must know whether your training is effective or not. I'm very specifically saying that "effective" is a subjective term that must be defined in some way. If you're going to use it, be prepared to define it.

It's like a manager telling an employee, "Do better." It's only helpful feedback if the employee understands what you mean by "better."

Once again, you set whatever standards you want for your training, and I and others will do the same for ourselves. Your standards and requirements are meaningless for me, and I suspect for a lot of others as well. I get that you don't understand that. You seem to want there to be a universal truth that applies equally in all cases, and you like to think you have identified that truth.

Well, there isn't, and you haven't.

I was looking for a little guy who shrugs his shoulders but couldn't find him. This one will have to do.

 

[drop bear]

Once again, you set whatever standards you want for your training, and I and others will do the same for ourselves. Your standards and requirements are meaningless for me, and I suspect for a lot of others as well. I get that you don't understand that. You seem to want there to be a universal truth that applies equally in all cases, and you like to think you have identified that truth.

Well, there isn't, and you haven't.

I was looking for a little guy who shrugs his shoulders but couldn't find him. This one will have to do.

Not looking for truth.

Looking for honesty.

 

[Buka]

I have really good scissor take downs (several variations) Been doing them since forever. First saw one at a demo, and immediately afterwards asked the people doing it to show me how. They were nice enough to do so. Since that time I've worked with others who also have really good scissor take downs. Always been a lot of fun training them. Do they work? Well, sure, they work great. I've done them thousands of times in training, at least fifty times in competitions, (never once did I get stuffed) even did one at a cookout so my buddy would drop his burger and the dog would get it. (he did)

Would it work in a self defense situation? I'm pretty sure it would, but I've never actually done one in that circumstance, so I guess some would say it's not proven. That's fine by me. I still like my scissors. And if you think it won't work, that's okay, too - but hold on to your burger.

 

[Flying Crane]

I have really good scissor take downs (several variations) Been doing them since forever. First saw one at a demo, and immediately afterwards asked the people doing it to show me how. They were nice enough to do so. Since that time I've worked with others who also have really good scissor take downs. Always been a lot of fun training them. Do they work? Well, sure, they work great. I've done them thousands of times in training, at least fifty times in competitions, (never once did I get stuffed) even did one at a cookout so my buddy would drop his burger and the dog would get it. (he did)

Would it work in a self defense situation? I'm pretty sure it would, but I've never actually done one in that circumstance, so I guess some would say it's not proven. That's fine by me. I still like my scissors. And if you think it won't work, that's okay, too - but hold on to your burger.

Did one in the capoeira roda many times and with mixed results. but one time I knocked out the other person. She ducked in a way I didn't expect, it lined everything up in a weird way, and the heel of my foot landed on her upper jaw. She went out, and later told me that it felt like her teeth were on fire. I must have hit the nerve in the cheek that serves the teeth of the upper jaw.

Yeah, that one can work pretty well.

 

[Headhunter]

Oh bimey quick look at the thread and it seems it's turned into one of those types debating what works and what doesn't.

Personally I'm at the stage of my training I simply don't give a damm if what I'm learning works. I know I can fight I can punch, I can kick, I can block. I'm just enjoying learning variations and different types of moves, not to fight with them but just to simply know what they are. Lately I've been working a few moves myself and would they work in a real fight...probably not in all honestly but Im just enjoying learning. I'm most likely never going to get in a fight again and if I do Im experienced enough to handle it I'm just enjoying the learning.

 

[Steve]

Once again, you set whatever standards you want for your training, and I and others will do the same for ourselves. Your standards and requirements are meaningless for me, and I suspect for a lot of others as well. I get that you don't understand that. You seem to want there to be a universal truth that applies equally in all cases, and you like to think you have identified that truth.

Well, there isn't, and you haven't.

I was looking for a little guy who shrugs his shoulders but couldn't find him. This one will have to do.

i truly don't understand where the attitude is coming from. When you say, "I get that you don't understand that," it comes across as pretty snarky, to be honest.

if you think I am trying to apply a universal standard, I'm doing a poor job of explaining. I'm not trying to apply any standards to you or your training.

Please, just take a moment and think about this. "Effective," however YOU define it for yourself must be measurable or it is a meaningless word. The same is true for "standards." However you choose to define standards for yourself, if they are not measurable, it is a meaningless word.

As I said before, a manager says to an employee, "I need you to be more effective." That's not helpful to the employee, because the manager didn't explain what "effective" looks like in that situation. Now, if he says, "your interviews are averaging 20 minutes. I need you to reduce your average by at least five minutes without compromising quality.".

This isn't about me imposing standards on you. As I said earlier, knock yourself out, provided you're happy.

To the point here, sport arts have a clear advantage over many non-sport arts in that there are clear standards and "effective" is demonstrably measurable and objective outside of the individual.

And lest you misunderstand again, it's not a big deal, except that we are having a conversation about arts like aikido being effective in self defense (among other things).

 

[Steve]

I have really good scissor take downs (several variations) Been doing them since forever. First saw one at a demo, and immediately afterwards asked the people doing it to show me how. They were nice enough to do so. Since that time I've worked with others who also have really good scissor take downs. Always been a lot of fun training them. Do they work? Well, sure, they work great. I've done them thousands of times in training, at least fifty times in competitions, (never once did I get stuffed) even did one at a cookout so my buddy would drop his burger and the dog would get it. (he did)

Would it work in a self defense situation? I'm pretty sure it would, but I've never actually done one in that circumstance, so I guess some would say it's not proven. That's fine by me. I still like my scissors. And if you think it won't work, that's okay, too - but hold on to your burger.

This is a perfect example of what I'm trying to say. Exactly.

 

[Steve]

EDIT: Just to add that success shouldn't be a 'probably' thing. Can I use my BJJ in self defense? Who knows? I know for sure I can reliably cross-collar choke someone even if hey don't want me to, and even if they're pretty well trained. How do I know this? Because I've done it thousands of times. See the difference?

I have really good scissor take downs (several variations) Been doing them since forever. First saw one at a demo, and immediately afterwards asked the people doing it to show me how. They were nice enough to do so. Since that time I've worked with others who also have really good scissor take downs. Always been a lot of fun training them. Do they work? Well, sure, they work great. I've done them thousands of times in training, at least fifty times in competitions, (never once did I get stuffed) even did one at a cookout so my buddy would drop his burger and the dog would get it. (he did)

Would it work in a self defense situation? I'm pretty sure it would, but I've never actually done one in that circumstance, so I guess some would say it's not proven. That's fine by me. I still like my scissors. And if you think it won't work, that's okay, too - but hold on to your burger.

lol. I said above this is exactly what I was trying to say. I realized as I was reading through the thread that I actually did say it. I knew there was something about you I liked, buka. Unfortunately for me, I don't have your charming disposition. Maybe I should have included a reference to BBQ.

 

[Flying Crane]

i truly don't understand where the attitude is coming from. When you say, "I get that you don't understand that," it comes across as pretty snarky, to be honest.

if you think I am trying to apply a universal standard, I'm doing a poor job of explaining. I'm not trying to apply any standards to you or your training.

Please, just take a moment and think about this. "Effective," however YOU define it for yourself must be measurable or it is a meaningless word. The same is true for "standards." However you choose to define standards for yourself, if they are not measurable, it is a meaningless word.

As I said before, a manager says to an employee, "I need you to be more effective." That's not helpful to the employee, because the manager didn't explain what "effective" looks like in that situation. Now, if he says, "your interviews are averaging 20 minutes. I need you to reduce your average by at least five minutes without compromising quality.".

This isn't about me imposing standards on you. As I said earlier, knock yourself out, provided you're happy.

To the point here, sport arts have a clear advantage over many non-sport arts in that there are clear standards and "effective" is demonstrably measurable and objective outside of the individual.

And lest you misunderstand again, it's not a big deal, except that we are having a conversation about arts like aikido being effective in self defense (among other things).

I'm not being snarky Steve, I am being honest in our discussion. Why do you misunderstand honesty, even if that honesty is blunt, with snarkyness?

You have identified something that works for you, and all the power to you. But your parameters and your methods are meaningless to me. Why is that difficult to understand? Why is that difficult for you to accept? I really am stumped by it.

honestly, these discussions, while I realize it is my choice to take part, have me feeling like I have a religious fanatic trying to recruit me. How many times do I need to say no thanks, before I get to say, just bugger off?

 

[Steve]

I'm not being snarky Steve, I am being honest in our discussion. Why do you misunderstand honesty, even if that honesty is blunt, with snarkyness?

You have identified something that works for you, and all the power to you. But your parameters and your methods are meaningless to me. Why is that difficult to understand? Why is that difficult for you to accept? I really am stumped by it.

honestly, these discussions, while I realize it is my choice to take part, have me feeling like I have a religious fanatic trying to recruit me. How many times do I need to say no thanks, before I get to say, just bugger off?

In what way does anything you just posted further the discussion? Honestly (since we're being honest) it seems like you're just being very snarky. I honestly believe if you took a few minutes to read my posts without deciding ahead of time you don't agree, you'd feel pretty foolish, as I've said several times I'm not interested in imposing anything on you. And I've explained it several times, as well.

Saying I am over and over doesn't change the words I've actually written. This is bizarre. Truly.

Edit: Okay. I'm trying to understand. Please tell me what you think Ilve identified that I think works for me, that I'm trying to impose on you? What is that? I don't see it. I just see all of the times I've literally said to you that you're free to establish your own standards, and more power to you.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Chris Parker]

I use wristlocks from aikido while doing BJJ. So, there.

Which is not the same as using Aikido or Aiki principles.

Ok everybody uses a version of Aki in martial arts. Counterpunching uses Aki. So every martial artist is versed in attacking in a way that maximizes their chances of hurting you and leaves them the least vunerable to counter attack. This is just a common sense aproach to training.

It sounds like you are trying to say what doesn't work in training will work in self defence due to some sort of fundimental shift in the dynamics of fighting.

That is not the case. If anything moves are harder to pull off if someone is attacking full noise.

If your system only works against a trained oponant or only works against an untrained oponant then you dont have a well rounded system. And you will loose application.

Yes striking creates opportunities for pressure and aki.

Grappling also creates oppotunities for pressure and aki.

No, not all arts use Aiki. Simply, you are not understanding what it is. It is not countering, and no, counterpunching is not an example of it. It is not anything to do with maximising attacking ability or leaving yourself vulnerable, or anything of the kind.

First I've ever heard of this, but I don't practice Aikido or speak Japanese. Do you know if the same outlook would extend to the terms "karateka" or "judoka"? What would the preferred term for an Aikido practitioner be in Japan anyway? "Practitioner" is English and -"ist" would be an English based suffix, so I'm sure neither of those would be used by Japanese speakers.

Okay...

The term "ka" is written with this character: 家. It refers to a house, or family (also pronounced "ke"), and the term "do-ka" (道家) then is used to refer to a professional, or senior practitioner... the term by itself typically refers to a Taoist scholar, by the way... so an Aikido-ka would be a professional, or senior practitioner of Aiki. You may note that the "do" suffix is not repeated... you are an Aikido-ka, you practice Aikido, and you attend an Aikido-jo (a place for Aikido).

The term for an "ordinary" member is "in" (員), meaning "member"... so the full term is Aikido-in 合気道員.

The distinction is that an Aikido-ka is someone who is able to practice the entire art (so has been exposed to the breadth of the art), whereas an Aikido-in is a member who is studying the art still.

I've heard this before, but in 99% of the Aikido demonstrations I see on video, the striking attacks delivered by uke appear to me like they would represent very poor swordmanship body mechanics (as well as being delivered at the wrong range for a sword cut). Admittedly my own sword skills are rudimentary at best, but I see some pretty glaring issues if the attacks are supposed to represent sword cuts. (The defenses against wrist grabs do make more sense if we imagine the context is an attacker trying to prevent your from drawing your sword. I could buy that explanation.)

Have you noticed the same thing? If so, do you think it has something to do with the fact that the majority of Aikido practitioners don't also practice a sword art? I know some people do cross-train with Aikido and a sword art, so I would expect those individuals might teach uke to present a better simulation of a sword based attack.

Partially, yeah... but it's also because the types of attacks aren't literally representative of sword (in terms of mechanics), but more in terms of attack angles... which realistically is what Aikido practices against...

There are some strategies used in Aikido that I don't agree with.

1. You always wait for your opponent to attack you. If you have this kind of attitude, you will never get a date with any girlfriend. If you want to take, you have to give first.
2. The contact point is mainly on the wrist. Even if you may have controlled on your opponent's wrist, since his elbow is free, you don't have a full control on that arm.
3. The wrist control keep you and your opponent distance a bit too far. It's not a "clinch". This will give your opponent too much freedom to counter you.
4. If you don't use your leg skill such as cut, spring, sweep, lift, hook, twist, scoop, ... you give your opponent's legs too much freedom. Only use your hand to throw your opponent is not as effective as to use both of your hand and leg to throw. To push/pull the head down and to sweep/hook the leg off is much better strategy.

And... with you not training in Aikido, not having any experience with it, this means what, exactly? Not all arts are the same, John, they don't all have the same values, ideal tactics, or anything else... so saying "if I was doing Aikido, I'd do it this way" is kinda pointless... with all the views I see here of what people think should be done with Aikido (it should have competition, it should have more striking, there should be different training methods, so on and so forth), the simple fact is that, if you do all that, you take it away from being Aikido.... if you want to train Aikido, then train it the way it has been developed... if you don't want to do Aikido the way Aikido is designed, don't do it. Talking about how you'd change it just shows that you (not just you, John) have no appreciation for the range of martial approaches, and can only see the limited values you have, based on your limited experience and grasp.

A few thoughts....

1. Not really. Pranin Sensei who just died 2 weeks ago, would state that the principle of "Go No Sen" was essential to Aikido. While you are not attacking first, you are also not simply receiving...it can be thought of as....anticipation, sensing an attack, and attacking back at essentially the same time as someone attacks you. In other words, at the very first movement or initiation, you are already moving as nage. If you are not, and you are waiting....well, you aren't doing Aikido.

2. Not at all. We are not trying to control the wrist at all...but rather our opponents hara or center. You have to connect with your uke when they attack, and you have to ground yourself while connecting them to YOUR center, not theirs. All the power comes from the center, not peripherally.

3. Not really, If you are doing it properly, you are touching shoulders, and keeping them close, using your center to manipulate theirs.

4. HA....I remember Ikeda Shihan once saying when asked about kicks....."Man who kicks, is man on one leg" Again though, we aren't throwing with our arms...if you are....you are not doing Aikido. Aikido throws from the center, it's hard, and takes a long time to develop and understand, but if you are doing it properly, it should almost seem effortless.

Just a small point... Go no Sen is a responsive timing. Sen no Sen is a simultaneous counter to the attack, and Sen Sen no Sen is to pre-emptively attack... what you're describing sounds more like Sen no Sen to me... which I'd agree with.

Aiki is so hard a concept? Because of it mystical nature.

Well, apparently so, as it's not mystical, and that video is not an example of it....